Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Torrentz.eu Domain Name Suspended

Posted by Unknown on from the searching-is-now-a-crime dept.

First time accepted submitter S37Rigor Mortis (1601271) writes "Torrentz.eu, the largest torrent search engine on the Internet, has had its domain name suspended following a request from the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit in the UK. The site continues to operate under two alternative domains, and is hoping to move the .eu domain to a new registrar." Update: 05/27 12:53 GMT by T : That was quick; the site is back, "after the owners pointed out that its suspension was illegal."

8 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. It's Back ... by ellocotheinsane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Torrentz.eu is back in full swing (1200 hours CET on May 27.) ...

  2. Re:Brits still think they own the world... by sa1lnr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really, from what I've been able to read so far the City of London Police "made a request" and the registrar agreed to that request.

    Not saying this is right or wrong, just questioning the fascist bit.

  3. Re:Brits still think they own the world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fascists very seldom use violence, or even direct threat of violence. They create an environment where they don't need to.
    When you say "made a request", what exactly do you mean. "Made a request" means that it was implied that the registrar somehow would be held accountable or that they otherwise would be given a hard time if they didn't comply then it is perfectly fair to claim that the police has fascist tendencies.

    With the right intonation and in the right environment "It would be unfortunate if you didn't comply" or "I would be disappointed if you didn't comply" is far more threatening than "I will hit you if you don't comply"
     

  4. Do we have a better file sharing solution? by Katatsumuri · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Granted, this whack-a-mole game with individual torrent sites makes for a fun show sometimes. But I find it embarrassing that the online community has to work around these issues time after time, and that some good people get caught up in legal battles.

    Are there any good alternatives to bittorrent for private, anonymous file search and exchange? I heard about several "darknet" projects, but they never seem to gain traction for some reason. Given a huge number of hobbyist hackers who support free exchange of information, I am surprised.

    Is there a fundamental reason why we cannot have free, anonymous file exchange? Or is everyone just happy with the status quo?

    1. Re:Do we have a better file sharing solution? by Katatsumuri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the software market would completely tank if large file sharing was legal.

      There is so much wrong with this post:

      1. File sharing in general is legal. Sharing certain specific files may be illegal in certain jurisdictions.

      2. The legal side of the problem is separate. In many spheres of life there is an area of untracked relations between people. Small cash transfers, personal presents, favors, discussions, meetings. I understand that the governments want to control, censor and tax all of this as much as possible, and at least ask for voluntary self-reporting in many cases. But I feel this "breath room" is important to keep the society sane, and we should have an equivalent in the digital world.

      3. The software market would not tank even if file sharing became easier. There are risks in downloading software from untrusted sources, and people who can afford it (or cannot afford the risk) normally buy it. Then there is also support, upgrades, special deals and so on. Media market has more to worry about, but also not as much as they claim.

  5. Re:Brits still think they own the world... by Raenex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really, from what I've been able to read so far the City of London Police "made a request" and the registrar agreed to that request.

    Not saying this is right or wrong, just questioning the fascist bit.

    Let's say you live in an apartment. What if they "made a request" to your landlord to lock you out of your own apartment, and the landlord dutifully complied. Perhaps you might feel differently if your stuff was taken in such a manner.

  6. Re:Since when... by coofercat · · Score: 5, Informative

    Going on... The City of London is often also called "the square mile" because it's a really very small part of the blob of the UK called "London". All of the London councils dwarf the City in both number of people resident and square miles covered. The rest of london has somewhere between 6 and 10 million residents.

    The City has a population of something like 7000 people, yet has something like >5,000,000 visitors every working day. To some extent, it makes sense not to let 7000 people define the local government policy for so may visitors (just about all of whom work for one of the areas employers).

    However, by the same token, those employers shouldn't be defining local government (or in this case, local police) policy. The City Police have asked for things like this before, and mostly been rebuffed, as seems reasonable, given who/what they represent.

    As the GP notes, We the People have never been asked if we'd like this sort of thing to go on - but then we actually don't pay for the City Police directly, as it is really paid for by the Corporation of London, who are paid for by the businesses within it. Hence we have this fscked up setup where there's a (small) police force for hire by whomever pays the most. That wouldn't be so bad if they just stayed in the square mile, but sadly they're starting to see their remit as "the Internet" as well. We the People could argue that the actions of the City Police brings the actions of the wider police force into disrepute though, I guess (not such a bad idea actually, now I think of it).

    The moral of the story is: If you receive an "official" communication from some police force or other, politely decline to do what they ask unless they can provide a court order. This will keep you out of trouble for longer than trying to be "helpful". Our judges might not be perfect, but for the most part they won't furnish the City Police with a court order for something as flimsy as this.

  7. Re:City of London Police paid by by Arker · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's a very old arrangement actually, dating back to the middle ages. 'The City of London' is not the city of London, it's a medieval corporation whose territory encompasses a small stretch of the most expensive property in London, and whose constituents are not the handful of people that live there, but the medieval guilds and the big corporations that own property there.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.